Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

michaelgeist.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 181 posts

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#151

Post by defrost »

inigyou wrote: post #119
Cyph0n wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. Bad actors desire complexity because it leads to indifference. The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy. “Unions can be corrupt” or “You don’t need unions to get your voice heard” is the kind of rhetoric that leads to disinterest in unions over the years.

I think "unions are always good" is worse than "unions can be corrupt or good, here's how to push for good"

I hear "unions are always good" about as often as I hear "companies are your friend" ... rarely in both cases and of those times almost never as a sincere belief.

Peer Cyph0n is on the ball, save in the instances of the rarer and more extreme terminally corrupt unions - and even those mostly hold worker safety dear (albeit little else).

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#152

Post by voakbasda »

Avicebron wrote: post #97
voakbasda wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a binary view, Good will always lose. Evil can act Good, but Good cannot act Evil. Evil has that advantage over Good that cannot be matched. This continuously plays out in our political systems. Good actors cannot fight the deluge of evil of their opponents, who are free to lie cheat and steal. Good binds its own hands. For good to win, it must act with even greater evil. At which point, it becomes the ve…

This is assuming a short game. Defection over cooperation dominates short games, but evil can't trust evil in longer play. And I would hope that the default desire is a long game..

For a variety of reasons, we no longer cultivate long term familial bonds or friendships, employment, or even product purchases. If you ask me, the world has increasingly become a series of short games that are being exploited by bad actors, and the result is an epic rise in distrust of just about everything and everyone.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#153

Post by tavavex »

b112 wrote: post #138
tavavex wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We wish it could have a better solution, but you all just couldn't behave" is often the argument in these debates. You seem to be dissatisfied with it, but tacitly accept it as the only way. Let me put a finger on why I will never agree with it: 1. The current situation isn't that apocalyptic. 2. The alternative is so much more horrifying. The first is a weaker argument because there is always a bottomless bag for t…

I agree with much of what you say, except the timing is a bit off. It's really only been 20 to 15 years since the "average person" even knew what that "Internet thing" was. It was the early 2000s, and later where it really took off for Average Joe. The problem here though, isn't what you or I think. I expressed dislike, as you do. The problem is, what's the average person think? And more importantly, those being elec…

> It's really only been 20 to 15 years since the "average person" even knew what that "Internet thing" was. It was the early 2000s, and later where it really took off for Average Joe.

When I brought up the 30 year figure, I was talking about the internet becoming more widely available, but still not mainstream or expected. I'm just trying to convey how long it's been around. Partially to illustrate that the equation hasn't changed in a long while, at least for a decade. Why did past attempts to control the entire internet with a heavy hand fail? They were tried extensively in the 2010s, and the 2000s, a few even before that. And now in 2026 we finally find the one worst thing ever that every government is suddenly in agreement over, moving in complete global lockstep, and everyone more or less knows that it will be forced on us no matter what.

I never disagreed about the probability of it happening, I was just trying to provide some points that probably led you to disagree with these measures, putting them into specifics instead of just a vague dislike that's expected of most tech enthusiasts like us.

> But I have seen courts push back over and over about governmental tracking, about police going too far in their tracking, yet I have seen very little, comparatively, push back about tracking on the corporate side. And we need to be honest here, in both cases private enterprise will manage the infrastructure which handles tracking, it's just who handles the "who is this person" portion. State or corporate.

This feels like you're talking about a specific country. Many nations will roll their own government-controlled identity systems, some already have the groundwork set up for it. The way courts react also depends on the nation, but a big problem for privacy legislation is that it's difficult to compel a foreign megacorporation not to do something, especially if you need their host nation as an ally. Either way, we've already been living under a corporate tracking regime for a while. If the identity system is controlled by the companies, at least it leaves gaps that can be filled by people who think otherwise, and it won't be linked to the data that governments already have on us. Companies also only exercise soft power for now, they can't physically force you to comply, although as we trend towards full monopolism, they sure can make your life hell. Even then, the disorganization still makes me think we should go with the private approach for this specific thing.

> I don't want a tornado to touch down near my house, but I'm not going to close my eyes if it's about to happen.

Does it matter how you react to it if you know it's going to obliterate you and everything you can see? If there's no escape, then that's that. Talking about convincing legislators and average Joes is self-soothing, because no one cares about us. People can't get their governments to do things that are much more popular than this, no one is in control. The best we can hope for is that we'll have some spare droplets of the free web left after all is said and done, because some nations will not care and create gaps in the system, especially if we don't get perfect great firewalls. But when every byte is attributable to you personally for every stranger who thinks to ask, it will truly be over. I've more or less accepted that we're going into a bleak world with very few worthwhile things left.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#154

Post by jolmg »

miki123211 wrote: post #139
jolmg wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can go both ways. Bad actors can simplify because it leads to indifference, by way of generalizations. "black" = "bad", "illegal immigrant" = "gang member". It's how racism works. > The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy. Empathy, yes. Simplicity doesn't normally lead to empathy; complexity does.

I think this often tends to fall along political lines. In my experience, the left tends to like simple stories ("we are poor and the capitalists are rich, so just take their money and give it to us", "if people love each other, they should be able to marry, no matter the gender"). The right tends to like complex explanations ("taking money from the rich destroys the incentive structure required for effective resourc…

It's probably more that one person understands their own views better than they do those of others, regardless of the particular views of each. Meaning, they perceive the other's views as simple and their own as complex.

A leftist can equally say that a rightist likes simple stories ("if the poor want to be rich, they should just apply themselves", "less developed countries are such because their race (DNA) results in inferior IQ"). The left tends to like complex explanations ("we don't live in a perfect meritocracy for one to just apply themselves. There's various complex societal issues preventing that stemming from racism, sexism, inherited trauma, classism, differing values from working-class cultures, etc. Some of it can be seen as maybe unintended but real covert oppression by the upper classes, which leads to a sense of societal responsibility instead of just simple surface compassion.", "Countries may be less developed because of a plethora of reasons, including historical events that lead to different issues and compounding effects, cultures that value other things over those that lead to personal economic growth (e.g. people that couldn't imagine leaving their aging parents to care for themselves or be left with strangers instead of personally becoming their caregivers), etc. Intelligence doesn't exist on a one-dimensional spectrum as measured by IQ. IQ itself probably doesn't only depend on DNA. It's possible your environment and personal history also influence it. If the belief comes from statistical reports on the average IQ by country, it's also possible it's due to brain drain from emigration.")

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#155

Post by jolmg »

Cyph0n wrote: post #147
jolmg wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can go both ways. Bad actors can simplify because it leads to indifference, by way of generalizations. "black" = "bad", "illegal immigrant" = "gang member". It's how racism works. > The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy. Empathy, yes. Simplicity doesn't normally lead to empathy; complexity does.

But “Black = bad” is not a simple argument because you cannot make that argument without backing it with a bunch of convoluted nonsense (complexity). Likewise with illegal immigration. Racism never was (and still isn’t) simple. There were entire scientific fields developed to justify racial hierarchy. Nazism was similar.

black = bad is the generalization, not the argument. The argument tends to be to just look at the number of incarcerated black people. That's simple.

> you cannot make that argument without backing it with a bunch of convoluted nonsense (complexity).

Unfortunately, the one listening is the one that determines how much complexity you need. Some people are convinced more easily than others. In the end, people tend to believe what they want.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#156

Post by zuzululu »

llm_nerd wrote: post #143
zuzululu wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

why did you not answer my question? do you know what per capita means? which point are you trying to argue against and where is your supporting facts? I asked you to provide counter evidence not conjecture.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#157

Post by 1over137 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #145
1over137 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>dominance of the Bloq Quebecois has over Quebec It's "Bloc". The NDP did well in Québec not long ago, when they had a candidate that the electorate liked.

I'm assuming you're talking about when Jack Layton led the NDP? That was 15 years ago

Correct. And yes I consider it 'not long ago', it was only 4 parliaments ago.

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#158

Post by Cyph0n »

jolmg wrote: post #155
Cyph0n wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But “Black = bad” is not a simple argument because you cannot make that argument without backing it with a bunch of convoluted nonsense (complexity). Likewise with illegal immigration. Racism never was (and still isn’t) simple. There were entire scientific fields developed to justify racial hierarchy. Nazism was similar.

black = bad is the generalization, not the argument. The argument tends to be to just look at the number of incarcerated black people. That's simple. > you cannot make that argument without backing it with a bunch of convoluted nonsense (complexity). Unfortunately, the one listening is the one that determines how much complexity you need. Some people are convinced more easily than others. In the end, people tend to b…

> In the end, people tend to believe what they want.

Agreed. My point about complexity vs. simplicity does not apply to people who are coming in with strong, preconceived notions. Because how would a simple argument convince them of a generalization otherwise?

Expanding on this, the point I was making is that Complexity is dangerous for those who are genuinely interested in trying to understand a topic or are simply on the fence. Just muddy the water until they lose interest and you’re golden.

The antidote to that is simplicity and empathy: start with the core issue and frame it in terms the audience will empathize with. In fact, I think this is also how you deal with the aforementioned group who are easy to fall into the trap of oversimplification; you just have to find a way to simplify things differently :)

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#159

Post by andrekandre »

voakbasda wrote: post #152
Avicebron wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is assuming a short game. Defection over cooperation dominates short games, but evil can't trust evil in longer play. And I would hope that the default desire is a long game..

For a variety of reasons, we no longer cultivate long term familial bonds or friendships, employment, or even product purchases. If you ask me, the world has increasingly become a series of short games that are being exploited by bad actors, and the result is an epic rise in distrust of just about everything and everyone.

  > For a variety of reasons, we no longer cultivate long term familial bonds or friendships, employment, or even product purchases. If you ask me, the world has increasingly become a series of short games that are being exploited by bad actors, and the result is an epic rise in distrust of just about everything and everyone.
we are motivated economically to get more more more, that means everything has to be productized, sold and reinvested faster and faster; this has the effect of making things more and more 'short games' as you put it... it effects our thinking night and day; gotta 'get mine' and 'quick wins' etc... when the whole society is arranged that way everything else starts to wane... just my observation anyway

Re: A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: Canada Signs UN Cybercrime Convention

#160

Post by andrekandre »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #88
Waterluvian wrote: post #5

It feels like there’s this weird layer to domestic and international politics where you do a lot of signalling to one audience while simultaneously winking at other audiences that you’re not actually serious. (I can never tell who is getting winked at…) I feel like WYSIWYG politics is what most of us want, but probably doesn’t actually work. The Ned Stark character that is righteous and right and quickly meets the he…

> I feel like WYSIWYG politics is what most of us want, but probably doesn’t actually work. Well, it wouldn't work for politicians that pick decisions based on what end benfit they get. Would work fine for people. Would need actually honest media tho

  > Well, it wouldn't work for politicians that pick decisions based on what end benfit they get. Would work fine for people. Would need actually honest media tho
one idea i have toyed with: what if politicians could easily be sued or recalled for campaigning on x y and z but doing a b and c etc

like if a campaign promise or policy proclamation became a kind of contract and you could objectively give them a grade and take fines for misleading the public in that manner...

i know that is what elections are supposed to be for but doesn't seem they work so good cause it can be years later and attention spans wane and a lot of damage can be done...

ALSO

we need to get rid of gerrymandering because if politicians can pick their constituents WYSIWYG doesn't mean jack cause they are just picking their audience

Post reply on HN